BNUMBER:  B-261856
DATE:  November 7, 1995
TITLE:  Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc.

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc.

File:     B-261856

Date:     November 7, 1995

Richard O. Duvall, Esq., and Bruce E. Kasold, Esq., Holland & Knight, 
for the protester.
Michael J. Farley, Esq., Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
for the agency.
Wm. David Hasfurther, Esq., John Van Schaik, Esq., and Michael R. 
Golden, Esq. Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the 
preparation of the decision.

DIGEST

Where protester fails to show that the awardee's bid contained 
understated prices, no showing has been made that the bid is 
unbalanced, and the award is proper.

DECISION

Hewitt, Olson Capital Recovery Group, Inc. protests the award of a 
contract to Palm Beach Realty Services, Inc. under invitation for bids  
(IFB) No. DU204-B-95-0014, issued by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) for exclusive listing broker services.  Hewitt 
Olson contends that Palm Beach improperly submitted multiple bids on 
the IFB and that the bid accepted for award should have been rejected 
since it is unbalanced.  It also questions the IFB's bid evaluation 
method.

We deny the protest.

The IFB covered broker services for single family properties owned by 
or in the custody of HUD in Palm Beach and Martin Counties, Florida.  
Bidders were to submit four prices:  (1) a percentage of the gross 
sales price per property payable for selling a property--the 
percentage was to be converted to a dollar amount for evaluation 
purposes by multiplying it by $52,000, the average gross sales price 
realized by HUD; (2) a monthly price per property for custodial duties 
required for certain properties; (3) a dollar charge for properties 
unsold as of the expiration or termination of the contract; and (4) a 
monthly dollar charge for lawn services per property.  Bids were to be 
evaluated by giving these prices weights of 60 percent, 15 percent, 15 
percent, and 10 percent, respectively, in determining each bidder's 
total evaluated price for award purposes.

HUD received 39 bids.  Of these, 12 were determined to be 
nonresponsive.  Palm Beach submitted 17 bids, 9 of which were 
determined to be nonresponsive because of extremely low sales 
commissions and/or unreasonably high lawn maintenance prices.  Two of 
Palm Beach's bids were determined low ($915.80) and second low 
($960.80).  Hewitt Olson's bid of ($1,032.41) was third low.  The 
remaining bids ranged from $1,254.50 to $8,149.00.  Award was made to 
Palm Beach on June 16.

Hewitt Olson first argues that all of Palm Beach's bids should have 
been rejected because Palm Beach, as a single entity, submitted 
multiple bids which, according to the protester, had no legitimate 
business purpose and were, by increasing Palm Beach's chances over 
other bidders of being the low bidder, prejudicial to the other 
bidders.  We have stated that multiple bidding by more than one 
commonly owned or commonly controlled company, or the same entity, is 
not objectionable if it does not give the bidder an unfair advantage 
that is prejudicial to the interests of the government or other 
bidders.  Fiber-Lam, Inc., 69 Comp. Gen. 364 (1990), 90-1 CPD  351; 
see also Atlantic Richfield Co., 61 Comp. Gen. 121 (1981), 81-2 CPD  
453 (prejudice found where awardee was to be selected by lottery, so 
submission of multiple bids unfairly increased chances for award).  
Although the protester argues that Palm Beach increased its odds of 
receiving award by submitting multiple bids, since award was to be 
made to the bidder submitting the lowest evaluated price, all offerors 
had the same opportunity to submit the lowest bid, and we do not see 
how other bidders were prejudiced.  See Pioneer Recovery Sys., Inc., 
B-214700; B-214878, Nov.  13, 1984, 84-2 CPD  520.  In other words, 
if the protester, instead of Palm Beach, had submitted the low bid, it 
would have received the award no matter how many bids Palm Beach 
submitted.  
 
Hewitt Olson also questions the propriety of the IFB evaluation 
scheme.  However, alleged discrepancies in an IFB which are apparent 
prior to bid opening must be filed prior to the bid opening time in 
order to be timely.  4 C.F.R.  21.2(a)(1) (1995).  In view of the 
clearly expressed evaluation scheme, Hewitt Olson was under an 
obligation to raise any doubts that it might have regarding the 
propriety of the scheme prior to bid opening.  This aspect of its 
protest therefore is untimely.

The remaining question is whether the bids submitted by Palm Beach 
that are lower than Hewitt Olson's were unbalanced.  To be rejected as 
unbalanced, an offer must be both mathematically and materially 
unbalanced.  Solid Waste Servs., Inc., B-248200.4, Nov. 9, 1992, 92-2 
CPD  327.  A bid is mathematically unbalanced when it contains 
understated prices for some items and overstated prices for other 
items.  Hampton Rds. Leasing, Inc., B-250645.2, Feb. 1, 1993, 93-1 CPD  
486.  Only after a bid has been found to be mathematically unbalanced 
does one reach the question of whether it is also materially 
unbalanced, i.e., whether its mathematical unbalance is such that 
there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the lowest 
overall cost to the government.  Id.  We are unable to conclude that 
Palm Beach's low bid 
both understated and overstated prices.

Hewitt Olson argues that because Palm Beach submitted an overstated 
lawn service price of $110, compared to the pre-bid opening agency 
estimate for this work of $53, and an understated broker fee of 2.9 
percent, compared to the agency's estimate of 6.0 percent, Palm 
Beach's bid was mathematically unbalanced.  Also, according to the 
protester, using the work estimates in the IFB, rather than the 
allegedly less reliable IFB evaluation scheme, a comparison of the 
cost to the agency under Palm Beach's and Hewitt Olson's bids shows 
that Hewitt Olson's bid would save the government more than $3,000 a 
year.  Under the circumstances, Hewitt Olson argues, Palm Beach's bid 
was clearly mathematically and materially unbalanced and should have 
been rejected.

Even were we to assume that Palm Beach's lawn service price was 
overstated (although the contracting officer reconsidered her original 
estimate of $53 for the work and changed it to $117 after bid 
opening), we cannot conclude that Palm Beach's broker fee was 
understated.  Hewitt Olson argues that Palm Beach's fee was 
understated because 2.9 percent is less than half of the agency's 
estimate of 6.0 percent.  However, Hewitt Olson's own broker fee bid 
is only 3.289 percent, which is only slightly more than half of the 
government estimate and only slightly higher than Palm Beach's bid.  
Hewitt Olson does not state whether it considers its own fee to be 
understated, but presumably it believes it to be reasonable.   

The protester also argues that Palm Beach's fee is understated because 
it fails to cover the contracting officer's estimate of the broker's 
costs, after traditional co-broker and agency fees are paid.  For 
instance, accepting the contracting officer's $450 estimate of the 
contractor's out-of-pocket expenses per house, per year, Hewitt Olson 
argues that after the $1,508 commission ($52,000 times 2.9 percent) is 
split equally with a co-broker ($754 each) and the $754 co-broker 
commission is split equally with the agent, the remaining $377 falls 
$73 short of the contracting officer's $450 per house estimated cost.  
However, subjecting Hewitt Olson's fee to the same analysis shows that 
its own commission of $1,710.28  leaves a sum of $427.57, which also 
is below the $450 estimated cost.  Accordingly, we conclude that Palm 
Beach's bid does not contain understated prices; consequently, it is 
not mathematically (or materially) unbalanced.

The protest is denied.

Comptroller General
of the United States